Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / If One Spits Once He Will Spit Again Proverb

If One Spits Once He Will Spit Again Proverb

Post a Comment

Volume by Jerry Lembcke

The Spitting Image
The Spitting Image.jpg
Writer Jerry Lembcke
Country United States
Language English
Field of study Vietnam War
Genre History; Armed forces History
Published 1998 (New York Academy Press)
Media type Impress (Hardcover)
Pages 217
ISBN 9780814751473
LC Grade DS559.73.U6 L46 1998

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by Vietnam veteran and folklore professor Jerry Lembcke. The book is an analysis of the widely believed narrative that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-state of war protesters upon returning domicile from the Vietnam State of war. The volume examines the origin of the earliest stories; the popularization of the "spat-upon image" through Hollywood films and other media, and the function of print news media in perpetuating the now iconic prototype through which the history of the war and anti-war motion has come to be represented.

Lembcke contrasts the absence of credible prove of spitting by anti-war activists with the large body of testify showing a mutually supportive, empathetic relationship between veterans and anti-state of war forces. The book also documents efforts of the Nixon Administration to drive a wedge between armed services servicemembers and the anti-state of war movement by portraying democratic dissent as a betrayal of the troops. Lembcke equates this disparagement of the anti-state of war movement and veterans with the similar stab-in-the-back myths propagated by Germany and France later their war defeats, as an excuse for why they lost the state of war.[one] Lembcke details the resurrection of the myth of the spat-upon veteran during subsequent Gulf State of war efforts as a way to silence public dissent.

Origins [edit]

A persistent only unfounded criticism leveled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam State of war is that protesters spat upon and otherwise derided returning soldiers, calling them "baby-killers", etc. During the tardily 1980s and early 1990s, years subsequently the war in Vietnam concluded, the proliferation of these spitting stories increased greatly. Every bit both a Vietnam veteran and a fellow member of the anti-war movement, Lembcke knew this criticism ran counter to what he personally experienced and witnessed. To the reverse, one of the hallmarks of the menstruation's anti-war motion was its support for the troops in the field and the affiliation of many returning veterans with the move. Lembcke was motivated to expect further into the truth and origins of this spat-upon veteran myth, and the contradiction between historical fact and popular collective memory. Other observers had already noticed the proliferation of stories and questioned whether the spitting stories even made sense. In 1987, columnist Bob Greene noted:

Even during the most fervent days of anti-state of war protest, information technology seemed that information technology was non the soldiers whom protesters were maligning. It was the leaders of government, and the superlative generals—at least, that is how it seemed in retentivity. One of the nearly pop chants during the anti-war marches was, "Finish the war in Vietnam, bring the boys home." You heard that at every peace rally in America. "Bring the boys habitation." That was the message. Too, when one thought realistically nigh the paradigm of what was supposed to accept happened, it seemed questionable. So-called "hippies," no matter what else one may have felt almost them, were non the most macho people in the globe. Flick a burly member of the Greenish Berets, in total uniform, walking through an aerodrome. Now remember of a "hippie" crossing his path. Would the hippie have the nerve to spit on the soldier? And if the hippie did, would the soldier—fresh from facing enemy troops in the jungles of Vietnam—simply stand up there and accept it?

By 1992, the Director of the Connelly Library and curator of the Vietnam War Collection at LaSalle University listed the spitting myth equally 1 of the "Top Six Myths" from the Vietnam era, and observed the myth "derives from the mythopoeic conventionalities that returning GIs were routinely spat upon at some time during their repatriation to the USA. This particular round of tales has become and so commonplace every bit to be treated reverently fifty-fifty amongst otherwise wisely observant veterans."[2] In 1994, scholar Paul Rogat Loeb wrote, "to consider spitting on soldiers every bit fifty-fifty remotely representative of the activist response is to validate a prevarication", and noted that myths like that of anti-state of war activists spitting on soldiers accept rewritten or "erased history".[3] An bookish study into the making and shaping of a collective memory found that testify of antiwar activists targeting troops was near nonexistent. Instead, it plant popular retention was manipulated by national security elites and a complicit news media by frequently labeling resistors to U.S. war efforts as "anti-troop".[iv] Equally observed by Clarence Folio after interviewing Lembcke and Greene, "the stories have become so widely believed, despite a remarkable lack of witnesses or evidence, that ironically the burden of proof at present falls on the accused, the protesters; not their accusers, the veterans. Antiwar protesters must prove the episodes didn't happen, instead of the veterans having to prove they did."[five]

Given this complete lack of prove that spitting occurred, but acknowledging that it is impossible to evidence something never happened, Lembcke ready out:[6]

to show how it is possible for a big number of people to believe that Vietnam veterans were spat upon when there is no testify that they were. In effect, my strategy was to gear up aside the question of whether or not such acts occurred and to testify why even if they did non occur it is understandable that the image of the spat-upon veteran has get widely accepted. Indeed, given the manipulation of information and images that began with the Nixon administration and continued at the easily of filmmakers and the news media during the 1970s and 1980s, information technology would exist remarkable if a majority of Americans had non come up to believe that Vietnam veterans were abused past the anti-state of war movement.

Synopsis [edit]

At the time he wrote The Spitting Prototype, Lembcke had not found a unmarried substantiated media report to back up the now mutual claims of spitting. He theorizes that the reported "spitting on soldiers" scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt "spat upon" past an American society tired of the war; an paradigm which was then used to ignominy future anti-war activism and serve political interests. He suggests that the manufactured images of pro-war antipathy against anti-war protesters too helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke asserts that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted past anti-war protesters were largely conjured, noting that not even one case could be reliably documented. He further suggests the "infant-killer" and "murderer" components of the myth may have been reinforced, in part, by the common chants by protesters aimed at President Lyndon Baines Johnson, like "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The Spitting Image asserts that the epitome of abuse of soldiers by anti-war demonstrators just really became ingrained in the American consciousness years later the war had come to a shut. Lembcke attributes part of the legend's growth to films relating to Vietnam, notably Rambo, in which a "spat-upon veteran" prototype is popularized. He writes that the myth of the spat-upon veteran was later revived by President George H. W. Bush as a style to help suppress dissent when selling the Gulf War to the American people. Lembcke believes that resurrection of the myth was useful in promoting the yellowish ribbon Support our Troops entrada, equally it implies that for one to support the troops, one must also support the war. It conflates the ideas of anti-war sentiment and anti-troop sentiment, despite a common anti-war chant being "Back up the Troops: Bring them Dwelling!"

The "spat-upon veteran" meme became so pervasive that some establish information technology difficult not to believe. In 1989, Bob Greene'southward volume Homecoming reprinted letters he had solicited, asking to hear from veterans if they had been spat upon.[five] Greene's book includes 63 alleged accounts involving spitting, and 69 accounts from veterans who practise non believe anyone was spat upon after returning from Vietnam, among other stories. Greene admits he couldn't validate the authenticity of the accounts in the messages he received, but he did believe spitting must have occurred, stating, "There were simply too many letters, going into also fine a detail, to deny the fact." Greene concluded, "I recollect y'all will hold, after reading the letters, that even if several should prove to be not what they announced to exist, that does not detract from the overall story that is being told."[7] "Greene was besides willing to suspend disbelief", says Lembcke, who cited Greene'south book as an case of how prolific the stories had become and also for the patterns that appeared in them.[8] Lembke said, "These stories have to exist taken very seriously, but equally historical evidence they are problematic. In the starting time place, stories of this type didn't surface until near ten years after the end of the war. If the incidents occurred when the story tellers say they did, in the closing years of the war, why is there no evidence for that? Moreover, many of the stories accept elements of such exaggeration that one has to question the veracity of the entire account."[9]

Lembcke points out that in that location were several paper accounts of pro-state of war demonstrators spitting on anti-war demonstrators and suggests that these oral accounts could easily take been reinterpreted and inverted and fabricated into stories about activists spitting on veterans.[9] He highlights the contradictions betwixt the collective memory of today and contemporaneous historical records, like the results from a 1971 poll showing over 94% of returning Vietnam soldiers received a "friendly" welcome.[ten] Lembcke also notes how it was older vets from previous wars who almost oft scorned the returning Vietnam Vets; in 1978 the Vietnam Veterans of America vowed in its founding principle: "Never again will i generation of veterans abandon another".[eleven]

In The Spitting Image, Lembcke acknowledges that he cannot prove the negative—that no Vietnam veteran was always spat on—maxim information technology is hard to imagine there not being expressions of hostility between veterans and activists.[12] "I cannot, of course, evidence to anyone'due south satisfaction that spitting incidents like these did not happen. Indeed, it seems probable to me that it probably did happen to some veteran, some time, some place. Only while I cannot prove the negative, I tin evidence the positive: I can show what did happen during those years and that that historical record makes information technology highly unlikely that the alleged acts of spitting occurred in the number and way that is at present widely believed."[9]

Reception and influence [edit]

Reviews [edit]

A review published in the Los Angeles Times reads: "The image is ingrained: A Vietnam veteran, arriving home from the war, gets off a aeroplane just to be greeted by an angry mob of antiwar protesters yelling, 'Murderer!' and 'Baby killer!' Then out of the oversupply comes someone who spits in the veteran'southward face up. The simply problem, co-ordinate to Jerry Lembcke, is that no such incident has ever been documented. Information technology is instead, says Lembcke, a kind of urban myth that reflects our lingering national defoliation over the war."[xiii]

A review published in The Berkshire Eagle chosen the book "Well-argued and documented."[13] Maurice Isserman of the Chicago Tribune wrote: "The myth of the spat-upon veteran is non only bad history, merely information technology has been instrumental in selling the American public on bad policy."[xiii] A review published in the San Francisco Chronicle argued that "Lembcke builds a compelling case against collective memory past demonstrating that remembrances of Vietnam were almost at direct odds with circumstantial testify."[13] Peace activist David Dellinger referred to the book as the "all-time history I have seen on the impact of the war on Americans, both then and now."[13]

Karl Helicher of Library Journal wrote that Lembcke "presents a stunning indictment of this myth, an illusion created, he maintains, by the Nixon-Agnew assistants and an unwitting press to attribute America's loss in Vietnam to internal dissension. In fact, the antiwar motility and many veterans were closely aligned, and the only documented incidents evidence members of the VFW and American Legion spitting on their less successful Vietnam peers. But Lembcke'due south about controversial conclusion is that posttraumatic stress disorder was equally much a political cosmos—a means of discrediting returning vets who protested the war as unhinged—every bit information technology was a medical condition. The paradigm of the psycho-vet was furthered through such Hollywood productions equally The Deer Hunter and Coming Home. This forceful investigation challenges the reader to reexamine assumptions about the night side of American culture that glorifies war more than peace. Highly recommended for large public libraries and for all academic peace studies collections."[14]

Christian G. Appy of The Relate of Higher Education wrote that "Lembcke's debunking of the spitting stories is quite persuasive. Simply he has much broader aims. Non only was there no spitting, he argues, but there was no hostility or tension at all between veterans and protesters. In fact, he characterizes their relationship every bit 'compassionate and mutually supporting.' [...] My own view is that the spitting stories are largely mythic, but that the myth itself reflects the deep acrimony and animosity that many veterans harbored toward the antiwar motion. Their anger often reflected a sense of class injustice that gave their more privileged peers greater freedom to avoid the war. [...] I base my conclusions on extensive interviews I have conducted with Vietnam veterans since the early on 1980s. Lembcke, however, gives no acceptance to the possibility that veterans themselves played a role in creating the myth of antiwar spitters, or that the myth teaches usa annihilation meaningful virtually the class and wartime experiences of veterans. For him, the myth is almost entirely a product of Hollywood and correct-wing politicians."[fifteen]

Mary Carroll of Booklist wrote that Lembcke "makes a strong case that tales of antiwar activists spitting at returning vets are myth. [...] He notes that gimmicky media, authorities, and polling data show no evidence of antiwar spitting incidents; the few events reported had supporters of the war targeting opponents. But later studies reported hostility toward veterans; "the spitting epitome" epitomized that narrative. Similar images were mutual in mail service-World State of war I Germany and French republic after Indochina; Lembcke suggests the Nixon administration cultivated this notion of expose because it stigmatized both the antiwar motion and veterans against the war."[14]

Online fence and investigation [edit]

In 2000,[16] 2004,[17] and again in 2007,[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] journalist Jack Shafer rekindled firestorms when he berated news media outlets for uncritically repeating the myth of the spat-upon veteran. Shafer'due south Slate Magazine online articles on the matter, which frequently cited Lembcke's enquiry, generated enormous feedback; the May 2000 article alone received nearly 300 postings on the discipline in just a few days, one of its largest-ever responses.[23]

According to Shafer, the myth persists primarily considering:

  1. "Those who didn't go to Vietnam—that being most of u.s.—don't cartel contradict the 'experience' of those who did;
  2. The story helps maintain the perfect sense of shame many of us feel about the way we ignored our Vietvets;
  3. The printing keeps the story in play by uncritically repeating it, as the Times and U.S. News did;
  4. Because any fool with 33 cents and the gumption to echo the myth in his letter to the editor can continue it in circulation. Most contempo mentions of the spitting protester in Nexis are of this variety."

Shafer acknowledges that it'due south possible that a Vietnam veteran somewhere might take been spat upon during the war years, and notes that Lembcke concedes as much because nobody tin prove something never happened. Shafer announced a challenge to his readers, "Indeed, each fourth dimension I write about the spit myth, my inbox overflows with email from readers who claim that a spitting protester targeted them while they were in uniform. Or the email writer claims it happened to a brother or a friend at the aerodrome or bus station. I await like e-mails this time, and I volition share with readers any account that comes with some sort of testify—such equally a contemporaneous newspaper story or an arrest report—that documents the sordid effect. If you lot can indicate me to a documented instance of a returning Viet vet getting spat upon, please drop a line to slate.pressbox@gmail.com. Email may be quoted by name unless the author stipulates otherwise."

Likewise, Lembcke joined the word and as well commented on information technology in the Humanity & Society journal, saying the stories merely keep getting better, and asking for any evidence to be raised. The discussions spawned even so another circular of more than than lx stories, yet just 1 was credible.[23]

Northwestern Constabulary School professor James Lindgren too joined the discussions and, after a review of contemporary news sources, institute many news accounts that discussed spitting incidents. Lembcke provided an eighteen-point response to Lindgren'south research, failing to refute near of his claims and expressing involvement in one of them.[24] A Dec 27, 1971 CBS Evening News report on veteran Delmar Pickett who said he was spat at in Seattle appeared, according to Lembcke, to have some validity equally a claim, merely still non as evidence that the incident reported actually happened.[25] [26]

Some second-hand news accounts that mention spitting do actually be, although there has been no evidence to support the narrative that anti-war demonstrators were responsible. Documented accounts exist where the anti-war demonstrators were actually the victims, non the perpetrators.[27] Other commentators have since addressed the myth to various degrees, even referencing the debate spawned by the Slate files.

In his 2009 book War Stories, historian and Vietnam veteran Gary Kulik devoted a whole chapter to the myth of "Spit-upon veterans". He closely examined Greene's book of letters and the Slate files, as well as the inquiry past Lindgren and Lembcke.[27] Kulik noted the contradictory nature of the stories in Greene'south book and concluded that Greene arrogantly dismissed the "surprising number" of veterans who "refuse to believe" the spitting stories, and wrote, "Greene was not just credulous, but negligently irresponsible." Kulik likewise criticized Lindgren'southward inquiry, writing, "Lindgren'south testify includes only one single starting time-person ("I was spit upon") account—the stories that are at the centre of Lembcke's book—and it appears the none of the accounts he cites were actually witnessed by a reporter. Moreover, Lindgren does not cite a unmarried case of a Vietnam veteran spit upon as he returned home, and that was the story that would ultimately exist repeated and believed." Kulik concluded that the spitting stories were formulaic and unbelievable, and were propagated to serve the political goals of those who wished to vilify the anti-war movement. "The image of 'hippie' men and women hawking up gobs of phlegm to hurl at the ribbons of veterans, as a pervasive and commonplace act, is surely faux."[27]

Specialist in ceremonious-armed services relations and advisor to the National Institute of Military Justice, Diane Mazur, also examined the works past Greene, Lembcke and Lindgren, and concluded: "There is no contemporaneous testify that Americans who opposed the state of war expressed those behavior by spitting on or otherwise assaulting returning Vietnam Veterans. [...] The idea, nevertheless, that spitting on or mistreating Vietnam veterans was in whatsoever way typical or representative of anything in that era is completely false. [...] It is by far the well-nigh powerful Vietnam State of war meme—a cultural unit of measurement of data passed from 1 person to another, similar a biological gene—because it can be deployed instantly to silence difficult but necessary conversations nigh the military. For that reason alone the conventional wisdom is of import, because it explains much nigh our civil-military dynamic today. It is also of import, however, to understand why that accepted retentivity is untrue, and who benefits most from keeping it alive. The myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran is a difficult 1 to claiming. [...] One intrepid soul, Professor Jerry Lembcke, [...] stepped into the fray [...] Every time he discusses his findings in a public forum, a hail of aroused responses follows, but his explanations and conclusions are compelling and unsettling.[11]

Meet besides [edit]

  • GI Coffeehouses
  • GI Underground Press
  • Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth
  • Vietnam Syndrome
  • Vietnam War in film

References [edit]

  1. ^ Stabbed in the dorsum! The Past and Future of a Correct-fly Myth Kevin Baker; Harper's Magazine; June 2006
  2. ^ The Ambience Truth of Vietnam War Legendry; John Baky, March 1994
  3. ^ Generation at the Crossroads: Apathy and Activity on the American Campus; Paul Rogat Loeb; Rutgers University Press; 1995; pgs. 77-80
  4. ^ Beamish, Thomas D., Harvey Molotch, and Richard Flacks. 1995. "Who Supports the Troops? Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Making of Collective Memory." Social Problems Periodical 42 (3):344-60
  5. ^ a b Whose history?; Jewish World Review; September 2, 1998
  6. ^ The Spitting Paradigm; Lembcke, Jerry; New York University Press; 1998; pg. iv-5
  7. ^ Homecoming; When the Soldier Returned from Vietnam; Bob Greene; M. P. Putnam'south Sons; 1989; Pgs. 10-16
  8. ^ The Spitting Image; Lembcke, Jerry; New York University Press; 1998; Pg. 80
  9. ^ a b c 1999 Annual Membership Coming together; Research Libraries Group; 1999
  10. ^ The Spitting Image; Lembcke, Jerry; New York Academy Press; 1998; Pgs. 68, 75
  11. ^ a b A More Perfect War machine: How the Constitution Can Make Our War machine Stronger; Diane H. Mazur; Oxford Academy Printing, 2010; Pgs. 98-101
  12. ^ The Spitting Image; Lembcke, Jerry; New York University Printing; 1998; pg. 68
  13. ^ a b c d e The Spitting Image [ permanent dead link ] ; New York University Printing; 1998
  14. ^ a b Editorial reviews - The Spitting Image; Amazon Books - Product Overview
  15. ^ The Muffling of Public Memory in Post-Vietnam America; The Chronicle of Higher Education; Feb 12, 1999
  16. ^ Drooling on the Vietnam Vets; Slate; Jack Shafer; May 2, 2000
  17. ^ Campaign Spit Takes; Slate
  18. ^ Newsweek Throws the Spitter
  19. ^ Spitfire; Slate; February v, 2007
  20. ^ More Spit Takes Archived 2016-x-xviii at the Wayback Machine; Slate; February 12, 2007
  21. ^ Pickett'southward Charge; Slate; March 3, 2007
  22. ^ Delmar Pickett Jr. Stands by His Spit Story; Slate; March seven, 2007
  23. ^ a b Humanity and Society; Volume 26, Number 1; February 2002
  24. ^ [1]; Slate Magazine; 2007
  25. ^ CBS Evening News, (Charles Collingwood reporting) [ii]
  26. ^ Vietnam Veteran CBS News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive
  27. ^ a b c State of war Stories: Simulated Atrocity Tales, Swift Boaters, and Winter Soldiers - What Really Happened in Vietnam; Gary Kulik; Potomac Books, Inc., 2009; Pgs. 79-96

Further reading [edit]

  • Carbonella, August. "Where in the World Is the Spat-Upon Veteran? The Vietnam War and the Politics of Memory". Anthropology Now, vol. 1, no. 2 (2009): 49–58. JSTOR
  • Dean, Eric T. Jr. "The Myth of the Troubled and Scorned Vietnam Veteran". Journal of American Studies, vol. 26 (1) (April 1992): 59–74.

External links [edit]

  • "The Spitting Prototype": Synopsis and Discussions by Jerry Lembcke, hosted by College of the Holy Cross
  • Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors past Jerry Lembcke
  • Social Construct Consent Theory: Why Nosotros Fought In Vietnam past John Kinneman Hasley

summersablessi.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image

Post a Comment for "If One Spits Once He Will Spit Again Proverb"